BREAKING NEWS: Weekly Jobless Claims Fall to 276,000

The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits fell last week to 276,000 from an upwardly revised 284,000 the week prior. Economists expected claims to fall to 279,000 from an initially reported 282,000.

Looming White House Financial Crisis Could Erupt In 2015?

msgfocus.com

Below please find a special message from one of our advertisers. Please note that the following message reflects the opinions and representations of our advertiser alone, and not necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of Response Action Network.

In fact, in June of 2008, while their stock prices were still trading at well over $20 per share, Stansberry published a report to his customers titled: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Are Going to Zero.”

Inside this report, Stansberry explained:

“For those of you who don’t work in the financial industry, it might be hard for you to immediately grasp what’s so dangerous about the extreme amount of leverage employed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let me explain exactly what Fannie and Freddie do and why they’re in so much jeopardy…”

We all know what happened next.

Both agencies went bust — and if not for a bailout from the Federal Government, both would have declared bankruptcy.

Barron’s — America’s second biggest financial newspaper — even wrote a story about Mr. Stansberry’s accurate prediction short, and called it “remarkably prescient.”

Over the years, Mr. Stansberry has made a name for himself by accurately predicting the biggest and most important collapses in America.

A few of the others he’s accurately identified well in advance include: General Motors, General Growth Property (America’s biggest mall owner), D.R. Horton (a homebuilder), and Gannett newspapers, to name just a few.

Stansberry also predicted the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices as early as 2010, when he wrote a report titled: “Peak Oil is a Flat Lie.”

Well, now Mr. Stansberry has issued another fascinating warning, about a new and looming bankruptcy.

“No one believed me years ago when I said the world’s largest mortgage bankers would soon go bankrupt.

And no one believed me when I said GM would fall apart… or that the same would happen to General Growth Properties.

But that’s exactly what happened.”

And, he says, that brings us today.

Stansberry says the next big bankruptcy in America will be even bigger than those he’s identified in the past. In fact, he says this looming bankruptcy will threaten your way of life, whether you own any investments related to it or not.

This collapse, says Stansberry, will change everything about our normal way of life: where you vacation… where you send your kids or grandkids to school… how and where you shop… the way you protect your family and home.

I strongly encourage you to check out Mr. Stansberry’s recent write-up on this situation.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform recently heard new information that could blow the lid off of the Hillary Clinton private email server scandal and shed new light on a consulting job Huma Abedin held while working as Clinton’s aide at the State Department.

The Daily Caller learned of a three-hour May 1 meeting two State Department whistleblowers held with the general counsel and staffers for the Oversight Committee, which is led by Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz.

According to a copy of notes from that meeting, State Department whistleblower Richard Higbie and another whistleblower told of an inspector-turned-whistleblower with State’s office of the inspector general who claims his investigation into Abedin’s work with Teneo Holdings, a consulting firm, led to the discovery of Clinton’s private email server.

Hillary goes underwater in the polls

By Canadian Press

WASHINGTON— Hillary Clinton’s campaign is barely off the runway and it’s already lost a little altitude.

In fact she’s dipped enough in the latest polls that the presumed favourite in the 2016 U.S. presidential race is now underwater, with more people expressing an unfavourable view than a favourable one.

A similar downward trend was expressed Tuesday in two new polls, released just weeks after she launched her campaign and even before her first big rally scheduled for June 13 in New York City.

One registered her lowest favourable rating in a decade.

The CNN survey put it at 46 per cent — down sharply since controversies erupted over her secretive email server and conflicts-of-interest claims involving her family foundation and far lower than her peak of 69 per cent recorded in 2011.

There’s good news for Clinton: She still leads all Republican rivals. Barely.

That survey had her beating Sen. Rand Paul by a mere percentage point, with a three-point lead over Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

The bad news for her is the lead has shrunk considerably. Her standing among self-described independents has suffered, with only 37 per cent describing her as honest and trustworthy.

The Republican party revelled in the surveys on Tuesday by posting a roundup of all the media reaction on its website, with headlines like: “Clinton Faces Questions of Trustworthiness,” and “Clinton Unfavourable Numbers Highest in 14 Years.”

Still, with 17 months to go before the election, the former secretary of state, senator and first lady remains in the enviable position of having a monumental lead in her own party’s nomination race.

While a crowded Republican ring will spend the coming months in a political battle royal, Clinton’s closest threat on the Democratic side is, according to the CNN survey, 50 percentage points back.

That long shot is Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in second place, followed by the other declared candidate on the Democratic side, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

“If either one of them were to win, it would be the greatest upset in the history of politics,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former Obama White House aide now a CNN political analyst.

To avoid a repeat of her 2008 primary loss, Clinton has tacked left on a series of issues: more lenient prison sentences, campaign-finance reform, immigration, same-sex marriage. She’s kept silent on other issues where she’s been to the right of her party grassroots — such as free trade and the Keystone pipeline.

But she’s not nearly as left-leaning as Sanders.

The 73-year-old, self-described socialist supports Canadian-style health care. He’s among the minority in Congress fighting a surveillance bill that would replace expired provisions of the 2001 Patriot Act. And, unlike Clinton, he voted consistently against tough prison sentences and the Iraq war before it became politically fashionable.

And he’s developing an enthusiastic online following.

Flattering posts about Sanders have been getting up to 70,000 mentions on Facebook and Twitter, with headlines like: “Bernie Sanders has big ideas, and they deserve our attention.”

That’s more than triple what positive items about the far-more-famous Clinton have generated over the same period, according to the monitoring site Spike. Sanders has also been speaking to overflow rooms and has raised enough money to add to his paid organizers in Iowa — he currently has two, compared with Clinton’s estimated 30 in that state.

Rush Limbaugh: Our Delusional President

RUSH: Have you heard what Obama said? Grab audio sound bite number 18. This is yesterday in Washington at the White House, the president speaking to fellows of the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative.

OBAMA: One of the important principles for me has always been treating everybody fairly.

RUSH: Right.

OBAMA: So whether that’s women or people of different races —

RUSH: Right, yeah.

OBAMA: — or, uh, different religious faiths —

RUSH: Right, yeah, right.

OBAMA: — or different sexual orientations —

RUSH: Oh, yeah.

OBAMA: — one of my core principles —

RUSH: Yes?

OBAMA: — is that I will never engage in a politics in which I’m trying to divide people —

OBAMA: — or make them less than me because they look different or have a different religion. That’s a core principle! I… That’s not something I would violate.

RUSH: Really? Folks, this is classic. Go out… It’s just the exact opposite. He clearly sees certain people as lesser. He clearly sees people that he doesn’t like that he considers to be enemies, people that need to be gotten even with, and he clearly has divided people. I mean, by design! There could be no other result for some of the reasons or same things that Obama has done as president. But it got even funnier — or maybe you would say more delusional.

OBAMA: People don’t remember, when I came into office, uh, the United States in world opinion ranked below China and just barely above Russia. And today, once again the United States is the most respected country on earth.

RUSH: (laughing)

OBAMA: And part of that I think is because of the work that we did to, uh, reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners, uh, with mutual interests and mutual respect. It’s on that basis that we were able to end two wars.

RUSH: Here’s the thing: I think he really believes it. I don’t think that he’s just saying this for the record. I think he really believes this stuff, folks. This is what makes this so problematic to me. Now, he’s delusional. If he really means this, if he really believes this, he’s delusional. If I’m wrong, if he doesn’t believe it, if it’s just political positioning, it doesn’t matter. In stuff like this, motivation actually doesn’t matter.

It’s the hard, actual fact or result that you have to deal with. The motivation’s just a sideline. And this is absurd. The country was never hated and despised. The first myth here and one of the things that got Obama elected was the media and the Democrat Party running around claiming the world hated the United States because of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It despised us, hated us, and we needed to elect these guys to once again make Europe love us!

Because Europe was the cutting edge. Europe was the gold standard. Europe and being European was exactly what we should aspire to. Being loved and adored by European socialists, and being loved and adored by our enemies in the Middle East. I’m sure that Obama, in his world, as a narcissist, actually does walk around thinking that he has rebuilt all this love and respect and adulation for himself and for the country.

But this idea, “I’ve restored America to the host respected country on earth”? Next he’s going to say, “I made Baltimore the safest city in America,” and he’ll follow that by saying, “Hillary Clinton and I made Libya, Iraq, and Syria the safest countries on earth.” Next, “Hillary and I also neutered Russia and China with our reset program!” He will say, “We have got the cheapest health care system in the world now, thanks to me.”

Have you heard the news about that today, folks? Have you heard what your health care premiums next year are gonna do? Have you heard about increases along the lines of 26%? Do you know why? Because they don’t have enough members. They don’t have any people signing up for health care in large enough groups to bring the prices down. Yet there’s Obama. He promised everybody premiums gonna come down $2500! “Keep your doctor and keep your plan if you like it!

“Everybody’s gonna have health care! Health care’s gonna be much cheaper and much more accessible.” So the next thing he’s gonna tell us is he never lied about health care. He made health care cheaper than it’s ever been in the United States. He’ll follow that by pointing out that he has created the greatest growth in GDP in the entire history of the American economy. He will remind us that he said he was gonna cut the national debt in half, and then he will claim that he did it.

He’ll follow that by saying, “I made the Veteran Administration Hospitals the greatest health care providers on earth.” I mean, to run around and say that he’s restored America to the most respected country on earth is no different than saying he’s made Baltimore the safest city on earth and that he’s lowered health care costs dramatically across the board. This is delusional. But you see, the thing is, we once again are up against it.

On the one hand over here we have reality. On the other hand we have the media and Obama and a combo desire to make Obama look as though he has been and is the greatest president the country’s ever had. Make no mistake: That’s the objective. So Obama goes out and says this, and that permits the media to report it and to stand on it and to analyze it and to write stories about how it’s actually true. (interruption) Well, you wait! That’s the next thing that’s gonna happen.

There will be deep analytical pieces, fact-check type stories, too. “Is Obama’s claim that he’s restored America to the most respected country on earth true or false?” And you’re gonna see in depth — oh, you won’t believe it, in-depth analysis — going back eight years, interviews with world leaders all over the world, and they will come to the conclusion that while it may not look like it on the surface, Obama has dramatically made this country more respected than it was when he took office.

It’ll be another opportunity to bash Bush and bash the Republicans. So once again an alternative reality will be created that will be taught in schools. It’ll be in the mainstream media, Drive-By Media on a daily basis. They will just create this stuff out of whole cloth, and it will become the next new reality. Half the country or more are gonna be sitting around scratching their heads wondering, “How the hell can this happen?”

Everybody is gonna be asking, “Are you kidding me? How in the world is this happen?”

The answer’s gonna be like every other answer is: “It cannot happen without a complicit, compliant bunch of accomplices in the media,” pure and simple. There won’t be any push-back on the Republican Party on this. This is not even about Hillary Clinton’s campaign. This is not about electing the next Democrat. This is all about legacy. This is like Benghazi. It’s like restructuring what really happened in Benghazi.

By the end of his administration, Benghazi’s gonna be nothing really happened there except a great, great policy that nobody was able to see at the time. (Obama impression) “I’m gonna tell you what. I’m the first president to guarantee health care for every American. Affordable! And I’m the first president that made sure that we deal with Iran on nuclear weapons.” He won’t say how. He’s just gonna say he’s the first president to have done it. That’s what he wants in the history books, and that’s what these claims are all about. Let’s just see if I’m right.

Let’s see how long it takes for there to be in the mainstream media little stories analyzing these claims. Some fact check-type stories such as you get in the Washington Post and the AP and other deep analytical places, in places like the New York Times Sunday Magazine, the New York Review of Books, places like the Brookings Institute, think tanks and so forth. Deep, deep analysis! I mean, so much intellectual-speak that nobody can follow it, keep up with it, translate it, understand it.

But the conclusion will be, “My God, Obama was right!” That’s what’s being set up here. We have to be able to just entirely… (interruption) It is two universes here. The real universe is where you and I are, and there’s this alternative, alternate universe over here, which we don’t understand. Well, no. We understand it. What we don’t understand is how so many people can buy into it so readily.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) today joined a group of Senators in introducing the “Cuban Military Transparency Act,” bipartisan legislation that would ensure any increase in resources to Cuba reach the Cuban people by prohibiting financial transactions with the Castro regime’s military and security services.

“U.S. policy should be guided by one, single principle – supporting the Cuban people’s aspirations for a democratic future,” Menendez said. “With the Cuban government and armed forces controlling more than 80 percent of the country’s economy, current efforts to expand commerce and travel to Cuba only enrich the Castros’ military monopolies. The Cuban military uses these funds to violate human rights and jail its opponents. This common sense legislation aims to ensure the American public is not a blind accomplice to the Castro regime’s repression.”

“It is not in the interest of the United States or the people of Cuba for the U.S. to become a financier of the Castro regime’s brutality,” said Rubio. “The Cuban Military Transparency Act would prevent U.S. dollars from getting into the hands of the Cuban military and would demand accountability from the Obama Administration regarding fugitives of American justice in Cuba, the return of stolen and uncompensated property and the role of the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior in Cuba.”

“The United States must stand squarely on the side of the Cuban people and take every possible action to weaken the brutal rule of the Castro regime,” said Cotton. “This bill is one such step. It denies the Castro security services hard currency and aims to hold the regime accountable for its past crimes and misdeeds.”

“The Obama administration has already sent terrible signals to Fidel and Raul Castro by relaxing economic sanctions on Cuba and removing their regime from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List,” Cruz said. “It is now beholden on Congress to intervene and ensure that this misguided policy does not result in our facilitating the Castros’ more than fifty years of aggressive hostility towards the United States and our allies. I commend Sen. Rubio for his work on the Cuban Military Transparency Act, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation that will prevent America from enabling Cuba’s odious security apparatus. Congress should send a clear directive to the President: We will stand with the Cuban people and promote freedom and prosperity, but we will not assist the Communist regime that has oppressed them for so long.”

“For over 50 years, the Castro dictatorship has brutally repressed the Cuban people,” said Gardner. “Despite President Obama’s historic change in policy this year, the Cuban authorities continue to jail dissidents and abuse the human rights of their citizens. This legislation would ensure that any economic benefit gained by Cuba from our policy shift does not finance the regime’s police state, but directly benefits the Cuban people.”

“The Castro’s regime of internal and external terror should never be funded with American money,” Kirk said. “The U.S. policy toward Cuba should always seek to hold the Castro regime fully accountable while supporting the Cuban people’s internationally recognized human rights and aspirations for freedom.”

Identify and prohibit financial transactions with the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, the Ministry of the Interior, their sub-divisions and leadership;

Amend the Department of State’s Rewards for Justice Program to include the arrest or conviction of the individuals responsible for the February 24th 1996 deadly attack on United States aircraft;

Direct the Attorney General to coordinate with Interpol regarding the capture of U.S. fugitives in Cuba;

Direct the President to provide reports on the role of the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior in Cuba and the return of property that has been confiscated by the Government of Cuba; and

Provide exemptions for current “cash-in-advance” sale of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical devices and remittances to family members and transactions related to democracy promotion programs.

###

Jorge A. Villalón: WHY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MUST RETURN THE US. NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO (GITMO) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA ???By Colonel Juan Armando Montes, USA (Ret), Graduate from High School “La Luz School” 1944-1955,

WHY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA “MUST” RETURN THE US. NAVAL BASE (GITMO) TO CUBA…….

Is it now the right time and place in history for the Government of the United States of America (USG) to return the US. Naval Base in Guantanamo, to the Government of Cuba (GOC)?

First of all there is a Legal Bi-Lateral Treaty Binding both Nations to the letter and spirit of the Law. This is a simple but profound question to be answered by Legal Scholars’ minds giving knowledgeable advice to the American People, to be decided “Only” by the Congress of the United States of America consenting or not about this sensitive matter and then the President of the USA acting on it, approving or vetoing it.

The USG must only return “GITMO” to a legitimate and sovereign democratically elected government by secret and universal vote by all the Cuban People in the sland and abroad,

only, and only then, when the Nation of Cuba is absolutely Free and Democratic his people united in close bond as one Nation, free of oppression and universally sovereign in the eyes of all Free Nations, only then!

The time is not yet in the horizon. The time to return “GITMO” is not now! Simple as that. It will be a grave historical unforgivable error and disservice to our present generation and generations to come, and obviously, paramount to the Cuban People if the President of the USA wants to impose now his will and mandate for political expediency or ideological reasons.

The President of the USA must act accordingly to the legal framework under the Constitution.

He cannot and should not act unilaterally in a legal matter of this magnitude without Congressional Consent and the absolute support of his Nation.

This sensitive diplomatic matter must not be solved by “Executive Order”

WHY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MUST RETURN THE US. NAVAL BASE IN GUANTANAMO (GITMO) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF CUBA ???

WHY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA “MUST” RETURN THE US. NAVAL BASE (GITMO) TO CUBA…….

Is it now the right time and place in history for the Government of the United States of America (USG) to return the US. Naval Base in Guantanamo, to the Government of Cuba (GOC)?

First of all there is a Legal Bi-Lateral Treaty Binding both Nations to the letter and spirit of the Law. This is a simple but profound question to be answered by Legal Scholars’ minds giving knowledgeable advice to the American People, to be decided “Only” by the Congress of the United States of America consenting or not about this sensitive matter and then the President of the USA acting on it, approving or vetoing it.

The USG must only return “GITMO” to a legitimate and sovereign democratically elected government by secret and universal vote by all the Cuban People in the sland and abroad,

only, and only then, when the Nation of Cuba is absolutely Free and Democratic his people united in close bond as one Nation, free of oppression and universally sovereign in the eyes of all Free Nations, only then!

The time is not yet in the horizon. The time to return “GITMO” is not now! Simple as that. It will be a grave historical unforgivable error and disservice to our present generation and generations to come, and obviously, paramount to the Cuban People if the President of the USA wants to impose now his will and mandate for political expediency or ideological reasons.

The President of the USA must act accordingly to the legal framework under the Constitution.

He cannot and should not act unilaterally in a legal matter of this magnitude without Congressional Consent and the absolute support of his Nation.

This sensitive diplomatic matter must not be solved by “Executive Order”

Obama’s trust-me approach falls flat with Democrats

President Obama’s argument that Democrats should trust his vision on trade is falling flat on Capitol Hill.

Democrats — even some of Obama’s closest allies — say it’s not enough for the president to pronounce his trade agenda the most progressive in history.

The lawmakers want assurances that the agreements under negotiation, particularly a huge deal being finalized with Pacific Rim nations, will protect U.S. jobs — assurances many say they simply haven’t gotten.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I take the president at his word that he believes … the argument he’s making, but I think he’s wrong,” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said Wednesday.

“The analysis I’ve done comes to a very different conclusion,” he added. “It’s clear that this will, in the long term, not result in the growth of American jobs and an increase in wages.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), head of the Congressional Black Caucus, said he’s in talks with administration officials, who have yet to convince him the president’s trade agenda would create jobs in North Carolina.

“I’m still at the place I’ve always been: leaning no,” Butterfield said Wednesday.

“There’s a difference between growing the economy and helping American companies grow the bottom line, and creating jobs,” he added.

Trade promotion authority (TPA), also known as fast-track, passed the Senate last month but faces a tougher road in the House.

Sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the bill would grant Congress an up-or-down vote on Obama’s trade deals, but deny lawmakers the power to amend or filibuster those agreements. The additional power is seen as necessary to Obama finalizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a 12-nation behemoth that stands as a top priority in his second term.

The president has acknowledged the failures of trade pacts of the past — particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed by former President Clinton. But he’s sought to reassure Congress that he’s learned from those mistakes and is negotiating the “most progressive trade deal in history.”

“When people say this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about,” Obama said in April. “My entire presidency has been about working families.”

The White House pitch has paid some dividends, as several on-the-fence House Democrats have come out in recent weeks behind fast-track. Reps. Ami Bera (Calif.) and Rick Larsen (Wash.) are two such backers, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) become the latest supporter on Wednesday, arguing that the TPP would be a boon for his export-heavy district.

“I’ll probably be very lonely in New England,” Himes said by phone.

“But my district is a very strong exporting district. … It’s got the possibility of increasing exports and growing jobs.”

But the vast majority of House Democrats oppose the president’s trade agenda, naming a long list of concerns — from food safety to the environment, currency manipulation to labor rights and the loss of U.S. jobs.

They’re also accusing the administration of pushing trade agreements benefiting corporations and other well-heeled interests, while leaving working-class Americans out in the cold.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) characterized the TPP as “a secret deal negotiated in back rooms and designed to help multinational corporations reap trillions while Americans lose their jobs.”

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said assertions that fast-track will help the working class have “no accountability whatsoever.”

“There is no way as an elected official you can say you are … fighting for working families and still vote for this kind of bill,” he said.

Driving that point home, top Democrats on Wednesday joined forces with labor unions and other TPA critics to trumpet a petition with 2 million signatures opposing the legislation.

Democratic support will be crucial to the TPA’s success, because GOP leaders are struggling to rally the votes to pass the measure on their own.

Yet Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Wednesday acknowledged in an interview on Fox News Radio’s “Kilmeade & Friends” that he doesn’t have the votes to pass fast-track.

“I don’t think we’re quite there yet,” he said.

Republicans have talked about winning 200 votes for fast-track from their conference, a high bar given many in the House GOP are reflexively against voting to grant Obama additional powers.

If the GOP sees more than 50 of its members defect — a real possibility — Democrats would need to provide about two dozen votes.

Only 16 Democrats are yes votes on The Hill’s Whip List.

The White House is confident its outreach strategy will succeed in swaying enough undecided Democrats for fast-track to pass.

“We’re not expecting to lose it,” press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked about the House vote, while cautioning there is still work to be done.

Obama is offering his full support to Democrats who back him on trade and face blowback from unions and liberal groups in primary elections.

“Those who are concerned about it, I think, do take a lot of solace in knowing that they can count on the support of President Barack Obama in a Democratic primary if they need it,” Earnest said, noting that surveys show the president is “the most popular, influential and well-liked figure in Democratic politics.”

But in a setback for the White House, two undecided Democrats — Reps. John Carney (Del.) and Cedric Richmond (La.) — said this week that they’re leaning no.

“I’ve got a whole set of criteria as it relates to Delaware, and there are a number of things that they’re just not there yet on,” Carney said.

Obama’s battle with Democrats over trade has been intense, and there were further signs of the strain on Wednesday.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), who opposes fast-track, argued on “The Bill Press Show” that the White House is taking the issue too personally by promising to stand behind those who back Obama on trade.

“What it suggests to me is this is really personal for the president,” she said. “He’s basically saying, ‘For the seven years that you’ve kind of had my back and been with me, [it’s] irrelevant. Because I’m making all my decisions now on TPP and TPA.’

“And I don’t think that’s a good message to be sending to Democrats frankly, if you’re trying to ensure that some of them who are waffling right now are going to stand with you,” she said.

Speier went on to say that Democrats don’t have great feelings for Obama after his seven years in office.

Asked if Obama has a reservoir of goodwill with House Democrats, she said: “I can’t say that he does.”

As the June 30 deadline for the Iran nuclear deal approaches, President Obama is putting all his cards on the table — by announcing he is keeping no cards in his hand.

In an astonishing interview with Israel’s Channel 2, the president declared that “the best way to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon is a verifiable, tough, agreement.

“A military solution will not fix it, even if the United States participates. It would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it would not eliminate it.”

Why is this astonishing? Because Obama is publicly eliminating any American possibility that we will bomb Iran’s nuclear sites even if the deal in which he has invested so much collapses.

Despite his declaration at a Washington synagogue last week that “Iran must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to get a nuclear weapon,” the president is in fact making it very clear Iran will go nuclear, and with his implicit assent.

Period.

Note that he has decided to eliminate the possibility of a military strike even though he has already indicated his deal will allow Iran to go nuclear in 2028.